« That Was Water in the Reflecting Pool, Right? | Main | Whoa »
July 16, 2006
Journamalism
The other day, I argued that journamalism wasn't hard. But it sure can be dishonest. Anne Kornblut should either be fired, or should have to write a public apology explaining how she misinterpreted Hillary Clinton's statements and why no one checked her version against the transcript. Kornblut, remember, is a top writer for a top paper -- she not only heard the speech, but was given a hard copy of the advance remarks. So to believe this isn't malicious, you have to assume that she 1) misunderstood Clinton and 2) declined to ever glance at the speech's text. So lazy or dishonest? And why such a history of flubbing the Hillary articles?
Bias? In the objective press corps? I refuse to believe it!
July 16, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c572d53ef00d83462a9ed69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Journamalism:
Comments
I really think the press is lazy, they rely so much on "conventional wisdom" that they often fail to investigate. Kornblut obviously had a narrative in mind, and she found statements to fit around this narrative. The thing is, even if this is corrected, it will be brought up again and again as proof of something or other. "Zombie lies" I believe I've seen them called, they just won't die. How many Americans to this day believe that Al Gore said he invented the internet?
Posted by: Unstable Isotope | Jul 16, 2006 4:09:28 PM
Yes, the NYT article is shameful, but Hillary could have made it impossible to claim she was misquoted.
From Atrios post of transcript:
But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So we do other things, we do things that are controversial, we do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think we are wasting time, we are wasting lives, we need to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."
If she had said instead the following (words changed in bold), the Times would have to report her words correctly:
"But with the Republican majority, that's not their priority. So the Republican majority does other things, Republicans do things that are controversial, Republicans do things that try to inflame their base so that they can turn people out and vote for their candidates. I think are wasting time, they are wasting lives, the Senate needs to get back to making America work again, in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way."
Nothing anymore can be left to intelligent reading or media fairness.
Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Jul 16, 2006 5:05:46 PM
But you can't doubt that even if Hillary had been sitting next to kornblut with a megaphone and a picture book, pointing out each word and interpreting it as she went, this article would have been written just as it was. It was a hatchet piece, pure and simple, and nothign can explain it away other than deliberate misrepresentation on the part of kornblut. This is her bread and butter. You only write stuff like that if you are answering directly to a higher power or are completely corrupt. Mere incompetence doesn't explain this.
aimai
Posted by: aimai | Jul 16, 2006 5:29:03 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
